this post was submitted on 16 Feb 2024
665 points (98.0% liked)

politics

19138 readers
5938 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Trump’s New York case will begin in March

A New York judge ruled Thursday that Donald Trump will stand trial in March on charges related to the Stormy Daniels coverup. Assuming the case goes forward as scheduled, Trump will be the first former president ever to be criminally tried. It will also be the first criminal case to slot in place among the complicated judicial calendar Trump is facing in this election year, and it means Trump will almost certainly face a jury before Election Day. In three other jurisdictions—Georgia state court and federal courts in Florida, and Washington, D.C.—Trump has been indicted on charges related to the 2020 elections and his retention of classified documents, but the timetable for those cases remains unclear.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] gregorum@lemm.ee 105 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Cheers 🥃

34 indictments in this case, it’s not election interference one’s swamped in political bullshit. This one’s backed up by a mountain of evidence, and the testimony of the lawyer who arranged it and already went to jail for it. That’s right, Trump lawyer and fixer, Michael Cohen, who you might remember for way the fuck back. Remember when we all were saying that this might be the guy who could assfuck and take down Trump? Yeah, well, now that’s finally about to happen.

And, with a solid 1/3 of the total criminal indictments against Trump all in this one trial, at least some of which is likely to result in conviction (due to the fact there’s no way Trump can slide on all 34 charges), this is very likely the beginning of a reversal of luck for Trump. I am finally glad to see it. 

But, we’ll see. I’m cautious, but hopeful. 

[–] Chef@sh.itjust.works 55 points 8 months ago (4 children)

Be careful with that “no way Trump can slide on all 34 charges” stuff.

All you need is ONE juror to hold their ground and it’s a hung jury. You get one dedicated MAGAt creating an 11-1 hung jury and Señor BuildThaWall can delay prison with mistrial after mistrial.

[–] quackers@lemmy.blahaj.zone 21 points 8 months ago (2 children)

How do you even have a jury trial for a president? isnt the jury supposed to not have a preexisting opinion of the person being charged?

[–] ProfessorPeregrine@reddthat.com 9 points 8 months ago (1 children)

From a jury I was being considered for (sexual assault), is not that you have no opinion, it is that you think you can be objective based on the evidence.

[–] Patches@sh.itjust.works 6 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Right which a Magat thinks he will be.

'Fuck your feelings. We use logic over here in the sane world" - Literal Snowflake

[–] Riven@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Yea that's what I was thinking too. It's more likely a left leaning person recuse themselves for their impartiality than a right leaning person who already thinks Trump is being wrongfully prosecuted.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] SGG@lemmy.world 17 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Sadly true. However given jury selection is a thing, you can bet that prosecution did their best to weed out any overly biased jurors.

I mean, nothing is perfect (it's humans all the way down, and humans are flawed), but for a trial like this you can bet both sides went over everyone with the biggest magnifying glass they could find.

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe 3 points 8 months ago

The need for a unanimous jury varies by jurisdiction and crime.

[–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 7 points 8 months ago (1 children)

One of the cases in NY his lawyers failed to request a jury trial, and is being adjudicated by the judge who clearly has no love for the defendant, and seems to be doing everything he can to avoid an appeal, much less a mistrial. That one is sticking .

[–] frezik@midwest.social 11 points 8 months ago (1 children)

That was a civil trial, not criminal.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] LillyPip@lemmy.ca 7 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

That’s true, but in every case against him with a jury so far, he’s still lost, even though a few jurors were trump supporters. When presented with the evidence in a forum where they have to listen, where that evidence wasn’t filtered through their lunatic talking heads, and where they couldn’t immediately run to their extremist forums to filter and reinterpret it for them, they’ve realised that oh yeah, this guy is a criminal and they’ve been duped.

I’m not concerned about rogue jurors. Many of his supporters can come back to reality when that reality is no longer filtered through a bullshit lens. Watch The Brainwashing of My Dad on ~~Netflix~~ (e: it’s no longer on Netflix. So Freevee, Prime, or Apple TV, I guess. I added the IMdB link, which includes places to watch it now). It covers much of that effect.

[–] johannesvanderwhales@lemmy.world 11 points 8 months ago (1 children)

This is one indictment, with 34 counts. And it's probably worth noting that if he were to be convicted, the charges would likely be consolidated at sentencing; 34 counts does not mean that he would be sentenced to 34x as much jail time. Not to mention that since these all stem from the same set of facts, it's most likely all or nothing.

[–] LillyPip@lemmy.ca 5 points 8 months ago (1 children)

At his age and health, only a couple of years would effectively be a death sentence.

Having to live in a cell without his luxuries, entourage, and Diet Coke button would break him pretty quickly. He’d likely have a heart attack from the stress and indignation far before even a short sentence was over.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ThePantser@lemmy.world 90 points 8 months ago (1 children)

This guy has so many 'firsts', too bad they are all horrible firsts that no one should have ever done.

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 39 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I hope his next”first” is “ex president sent to prison.”

And his last is “first ex president to die in prison”

[–] NovaPrime@lemmy.ml 13 points 8 months ago (2 children)

I'm still holding out for first presidential candidate to croak weeks from election day

I hope he has a stroke from his gluttonous lifestyle and gets locked in syndrome for at least 5 years.

Being physically unable able to communicate would be the worst punishment imaginable for him.

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 4 points 8 months ago

If we set up a go fund me to buy him hamberders… we could maybe get that done

[–] Jackcooper@lemmy.world 57 points 8 months ago (6 children)

Is there any chance on earth that he actually goes to jail for even a day?

[–] ryven@lemmy.dbzer0.com 36 points 8 months ago (6 children)

I think it's way more likely that he gets sentenced to house arrest, which he could serve at Mar a Lago. The other option is to have Secret Service agents following him around inside a prison trying to protect him from the other inmates (and possibly the guards), and I don't think either the prisons or the Secret Service want to deal with that.

[–] Weirdmusic@lemmy.world 27 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Actually they could throw him in a maximum security prison and condem him to solitary confinement (for his own protection you know) and that would negate the need for the Secret Service

[–] ouRKaoS@lemmy.today 17 points 8 months ago (1 children)

The Secret Service would still need to be around to protect him from the guards & the ghost of Epstein.

[–] DrDeadCrash@programming.dev 13 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Maybe a disgraced ex president shouldn't receive an honor guard?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] mriguy@lemmy.world 18 points 8 months ago (1 children)

"Yeah, he's a convicted felon, but we can't put him in jail because that would inconvenience the Secret Service."

Nope. Sorry it's a burden for them, but they can figure it out. Make a prison out of the brig on an abandoned military base in the middle of nowhere with him as the only prisoner. It worked for Rudolph Hess.

It's really not even that big of a burden. They already have wings for people like former cops and child molesters, so he'll fit in nicely. They'll just need a chair for the SS detail.

[–] quackers@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Prison is for poor people, not presidents. I think most people understand that not everyone is equal under the law at this point in time.

[–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 8 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Ulysses S. Grant set the precedent that a sitting president can be prosecuted in 1872 while he was president, and got pulled over, for the third time, for "speeding on a horse inside the city limits of Washington DC." He told the officer that attempted to let him go, that Congress had literally passed article 1983 the previous year, and that even The POTUS doesn't have immunity. Sure it was a speeding ticket, but that's still precedent, with a statute to back it up.

The statute in question needs to be reviewed by The SCOTUS, as they were provided incorrectly edited wording of that statute, ommiting 16 crucial words of the law, in the case of Harlow vs. Fitzgerald in 1982, and illegally set up the Qualified Immunity Doctrine.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] johannesvanderwhales@lemmy.world 25 points 8 months ago (2 children)

For this? No. For the Georgia case? It's a real possibility if he doesn't get elected.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] pearsaltchocolatebar@discuss.online 16 points 8 months ago (8 children)

None at all. As a last resort they'll (successfully) make a incompetency plea, which is true. The man isn't competent enough to tie his shoes without adult supervision.

[–] Witchfire@lemmy.world 28 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

In a sane world, an incompetency plea would bar someone from office

[–] RGB3x3@lemmy.world 18 points 8 months ago

That would mean:

Too incompetent to be found guilty of a crime, but still somehow competent enough to hold arguably the most important position in the world.

Please make it make sense.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 10 points 8 months ago (2 children)

The most likely situation is barred from running for President while he continues to spew lies and vitriol from the sidelines. We also can’t ignore the possibility of his progeny running for office thanks to the dynastic view these scumbag wealthy types tend to take of their money and power.

[–] johannesvanderwhales@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago

There is nothing about this case that would bar him from running for office. This is unrelated to Jan 6.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] stoly@lemmy.world 8 points 8 months ago (5 children)

Yes, but not in this case. Some of the other cases will get him there and it will be glorious.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] Son_of_dad@lemmy.world 6 points 8 months ago

No. Best we can hope for is to bog him down in appeals and lawsuits, till his heart pops from a big Mac

[–] cheese_greater@lemmy.world 18 points 8 months ago (3 children)

Particularly enjoyable is no more of this jet-setting on campaign bullshit in lieu of sitting in a series of dreary courtrooms for the rest of his days

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] mightyfoolish@lemmy.world 13 points 8 months ago

Repercussions make us all better people. Hope you enrich your life soon Trump [hopefully, in jail].

[–] WarmSoda@lemm.ee 12 points 8 months ago

Good for him! I always knew he could do it

[–] AingealDash@lemmings.world 12 points 8 months ago

Well somebody had to be first and I'm pretty sure he has a Ricky Bobby mindset.

load more comments
view more: next ›